User talk:Felix Omni/archive7
sockpuppets (selected portions only) Never accuse another user of being a sockpuppet merely based on their knowledge of the Wiki and its past history. Assume Good Faith until proven otherwise. Not only is it rude, but it creates unnecessary tension and can lead to drama. Moreover it is a quick way to make enemies. (T/ ) 23:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC) :Uh huh. 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :I suppose I shouldn't point out the following things: #By accusing me of accusing him (them) without good reason, you have also not assumed good faith. How would you presume to know what drives my actions? #I almost immediately amended my statement on Banjthulu's talk page, as I realized it was rather blunt. I do not pretend to comprehend your rationale for disregarding that. #When people (including me) accused User:Light Kitty of being Warwick's sock puppet, you did not give a tinker's cuss, so to speak. #I don't care about making enemies any more than I do about making friends. 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::I should also point out that I was involved with the "accusations" of sockpuppetry. Though, I was more or less joking... accept for Light Kitty. -- [[User:Isk8|''I~sk8]] (T/ 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC) #You did accuse them without good reason. To paraphrase, "no user that new could possibly know of such old Wiki affairs". Therefore, the conclusion is automatically that the user is a sockpuppet. That is a breach of AGF. You made accusations, and me stating that as a matter of fact is not "accusing" you. I don't have to accuse you of something you did. Moreover, your motives are irrelevant: accusations of sockpuppetry are always bad. No good can come of such witch-hunts. Who gives a fuck, anyways, if an old user comes back as a new account? The only time sockpuppets cause trouble is when it is a User:Stabber-like situation...the sockpuppet throws votes, creates drama with themselves, etc. Neither Banthjulu nor Dr.R.Phalange is doing any such thing, and thus you have no right to even bring up such a subject. #Apologizing is always nice and I am glad that you did so. But that does not mean I can tell you that your actions were wrong anyways. If I ban a fellow admin that I disagree with, and then later apologize and reverse the ban because I was personally involved and it was abuse of powers, I still ought to be told off and get punished for the deed. #Who the heck is User:Light Kitty? I am not omniscient, Felix, and if there have been other such cases of this behavior that I do not notice then that is not my fault. I only happen to have Banthjulu on my Watchlist, hence why I noticed this incident and brought it up. I will go and look into that incident, though from your wording it seems that it is already done with so anything I say may be irrelevant now. #Good for you; that means you have no qualms about me saying I have no reason to explain my past actions to you any more. I hope your Rohan socializing is faring much better, since you have no friends left here. Not that you care - "the Wiki is not a place for private discussions". We are all business here. (T/ ) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I apologize. I crossed the line there. It is evident that I am too personally involved with you. I ought to let someone else handle this and other situations from here on out. (T/ ) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :No, that's okay. It's about time you showed some honesty. 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ::That's an uncalled for response. Entropy is obviously somewhat distraught and you respond by calling her honesty into question? Just let it die. Banjthulu is better than you 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::Oh, hi. What are you doing here? 18:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Why do you bother restoring the section If it's just a biased bastardization of the actual discussion? -Auron 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :"Selected portions only" part actually points out the fact you are censoring people, while had you not it wouldn't be apparent a discussion you didn't like took place at all.-- 05:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Prepare for censorship, censorship imminent. 05:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Shut up. 05:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Technically, you're breaking the policy only letting certain comments through, because thats technically editing comments (Giving people answers, but not the thing that the answers were to, for instance). 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Felix knows he's censoring, he's admitting it, but he's trying to explain his actions while also trying to let the situation cool down. Granted, it's by making the arguement absent, but absence helps people cool down. And which policy addresses how talk pages are to be used/editted? JonTheMon 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Censorship is hardly the best way to cool down a situation. If one wants a situation to be "cooled down" then they should stop being involved with it at all. Removing parts that are unfavorable just makes the censor look biased and unwilling to be wrong. Had that person let the situation alone then it would appear that person was mature enough to let the situation drop.-- 16:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Yes, but how often do things "get dropped" then something on your talkpage stares up in your face and pisses you off? Or someone else off? Now, I'll say that the better course of action would have been to just archive and let it fade away ('course, the discussion could still be active, not allowing this...) instead of making the conversation just show his "better side". JonTheMon 16:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Alright. I archived only to prevent a discussion of religion, which would have turned into a flame war, as well as making me extraordinarily angry. You could say I archived for my own health- high blood pressure, etc. I then restored the part of the discussion pertaining to sock puppets, because it was valid, and what's more, it was not concluded. I will not host a religious debate on my talk page. Ever. 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) You You're making the same mistakes as May :] 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :And you are May. 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Or James, or perhaps the other brother. Who knows :P --- -- (s)talkpage 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Bran doesn't play GW ;). — Warw/Wick 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Or exist. 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Cynicism is expected, but not needed. — Warw/Wick 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::: *like this, Felix? ;) Yeah, Wikicode is a bitch sometimes. Blah --- -- (s)talkpage 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::That's the curse of prefixing with an asterisk. 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Rohan Z0mg, I liek, playeed it. RT sez it looks like a korean hack and slash. :p — Warw/Wick 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :It is Korean, but it's fairly sophisticated. 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::Oh, gimme your IGN so I can powerlevel you and stuff. 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::Maywick. — Warw/Wick 18:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::K, mine's Nephenee- cuz she's a tank, of course. 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Mm, Maywick got deleted. I'm Warwick. — Warw/Wick 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Find Player and Add Friend aren't showing any results for Warwick. Are you on the correct server (Silva)? They don't carry over. It's kind of stupid imo. 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::Orite. Silva was Full. :( I'm maywick again then. — Warw/Wick 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Even when a server says Full, you can still use it. 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Kay. — Warw/Wick 18:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) :::::Nephenee is most definitely a tank. Especially when you give her things like adept and gamble :P 70+ percent critical chance ftw ^_^ '¬ Wizårdbõÿ777'''(talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Precisely correct! :D 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)